The Sun. — London, England, 1838-02-27 00:00:00

Is this confined to the Times of Friday? Why, on Saturday this paper takes the Noble Lord's part against me, and having in the usual form introduced my name.—( Laughter.) I be lieve my name is sterotyped at the office for the advantage of the paper.—(Renewed laughter.) In one paragraph it accuses me, and then it turns about to vindicate by abusing all Corn.. mittees. It then talked of the Roxburgh Committee ; and " the peritioner says there is no redress for his wrongs, or for those of his supporters, nor any sort of satisfaction beyond that of throwing away his money in experiment. Thus we dare not say corruptly, but almost incredibly baffled" —dare not say corruptly ! Don't they say " corruptly" in making the apolcgy ?—( Hear, hear.) Their fears, and not their judgment, induce them to make that apology. Then it refers to the Sligo Committee. Ido not think the Gallant Officer (Colonel Perceval), who sits next to the Noble Lord (Maidstone), would laud that Committee muele.—( Laugh ter.) I was mistaken—the Gallant Officer is smiling—l love the good humour of his countenance.---(Renewed laughter.) When the Committee was formed, I thought it had fallen 50 per cent.—(Great laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman then read another paragraph from the Times, stating that lament able and disgraceful as were the proceedings of the Commit tees, one consolation was left, namely, that a remedy could not be much longer withheld—( Cheers) " Lamentable and disgraceful" are the words of your own organ. It does not make a distinction, because it draws in all the Committees. This is the language of the public press—it is the language of the public. And again I thank the Noble Lord for bringing the subject forward.—( Hear, hear.) Your partiality is evinced in the crowding of Members on ballot days—in the canvassing of the agents--in the chuckling of the attornies, according as the numbers balance on either side.--( Hear, haar.) A very humorous writer talks of a Court which decided judicial ques tions by dice. I for one bad much rather take the " hazard of the die," than come to that box (the ballot-box); I had rather stand my chance of the dice, and say, " Seven's the main-11 is the nick."—(Loud laughter.) When the change was first made in the system of Election Committees, by the passing of the Grenville Act it arose from seen like myself, speaking out plainly and decidedly. Is there not as great an evil existing now, as before the passing of the Gren ville Act ?—( Cheers.) Is it not natural that the bad qua lities of the House before that period, should not now be con centrated into the several Committees ?—( Wear, hear.) Lord Chatham said, " the Members of the House cover themselves with everlasting disgrace." This is before the passing of the Grenville Act. Mr. Grenville, in moving for his Bill, said, "both parties are canvassed, agthough we were self-elective." --( Hear, hear.) I repeat this language—is it not true of the Houee now?—(Cheers)—will any man—can any man, deny that this is the cave ?—( Continued cheering.) I am bound to admit for a time that the ill effects of the pre sent system were not disclosed—its ill effects were disclosed when impartiality was most required—when you wanted pro tection the most you have it least, and just in the reverse ratio, when you most want a fair tribunal you have a partial one.—( Cheers.) Mr. Ridge, in speaking of the Grenville Act, said that unless oaths were more attended to and abided by, it would make bad worse.—( Cheers ) Ido implore the House—l know that there are certain Members of it who bear no very kind feeling towards me—let them still retain a good name, but lot me esk them, for their own sakes, reflect on this. —( Cheers.) Have I not done well to call the pubiic atten tion to this ?—( Cheers.) In what I said I did not mean to re flect personally.--e Cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh !") How had the people of England got rid of oppression—how had the prerogatives of the Crown been shorn to their proper shape—how had the judicial bench been altered from all that was bad to the pure fountain of justice—how had the jury system been purified—how have your institutions been ameliorated? Why, by some unfortunate, unintelligent individual, like myself, having the boldness to speak out, and show things in their natural sphere.—( Loud cheers.) I am one who love to give words their natural meaning, and I say the thing is now done it is impossible for the system to continue longer in existence. The Morning Chronicle of this morning says the people will not stand it ; the Times says the people of England will not bear it. The honesty and integrity of the people will not endure it.--( Loud cheers.) Let ate see now the men of sincere and pure piety--sincere and pure religion look to the evil of the desecration of that God who shall judge us all. Let the Honourable Gentleman opposite protest before God that this is all a ealumny—let your English Gen , tlemen boldly state that you are the victims of a system, and that you are not acting of your own disposition—proclaim that you arc borne down by the faults of the system, that you are forced into practices as a party w hi c h as i n d iv id ua l s you would scorn. Repeal that system altogether—reform it, and you shall have any apology from me you please.—( Cheers. ) But until you abolish that, you shall not have a word from me, because I assert that I have spoken Nothing bat the truth. You shall to-morrow have the papers is every pert of the town, and in every part of the country, calling out for fair play and justice—it is impossible that you ran resist it ; and if I have been an humble instrument in bringing things to such a fortunate pitch, I feel honoured. Had I not been prevented by you, Sir, I intended to have moved that a Committee of twenty-one should be appointed to sit from day to day, to inquire into and report into the working of the Grenville Act—that that Committee should -sport from time to time, and intended to have suggested that all Committees under that Act should be adjourned for a week.—(Cries of " Oh," and laughter, from the Opposition.) Why, sir, if I wanted a justification of my statement I have it at present in the fact that Hoe. Members may vote against me while they agree with me in opinion. Therefore, sir, I shell now retire, declaring to the House that I have come forward in this business from a thorough conviction of the truth of what I have said. lam bound to thank the Noble Lord for the courtesy with which he has brought for ward the motion, and with these sentiments I shall, as the usual course is, withdraw.—( The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then quitted the House amidst loud and vehement cheering.) Viscount MAIDSTONE said that nothing which had fallen from the Honourable and Learned Member had in the slightest degree changed his intention with respect to the motion he should have the honour of proposing to the House.—( Hear, hear.) The Honourable and Learned Mem• bey had endeavoured to look at it in a laughable point of view.—( Loud laughter, and No, no.) He had endeavoured to laugh at the charge in a manner unbecoming the gravity ct that House. There were expressions containing a groom and slanderous imputation upon the conduct of Honour able Members who belonged to that House, which he certainly would not for. one pass over. The lion. and Learned Member had not altered the complexion of the affair in the least, and although the Nthle Lord the Member for Stroud had intimated that he would bring forward another breach of privilege if he (Lord Maidstone) persevered in his, he would say the Noble Lord was perfectly at liberty to do so ; and if the Noble Lord substantiated his charge, he ( Lord Maidstone) would vote with him. He would now move Ist, that the enpressions in the slid speech, containing a charge of foul perjury against Mem bers of that House in the discharge of their official duties was a false and scandalous imputation on their House and character. 21, that Mr. O'Connell having avowed he had used them, is guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House.— ( Opposition cheers.) Mr. MA 15 NSEL, in seconding the motion, confessed that that duty might have fallen into abler hands, and still less did he feel competent to cope with the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin in the particular do scription of language which he was in the habit of using both in and out of that House.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches.) Holding, however, as he did, certain opinions as to the degree of courtesy which ought to be observed by Members of that House to wards each other, and of the usages of society, he must de clare that in his view the ;unqoalitied expressions of the lion. and Learned Member conveyed the most false and calumnious charges.—( Cheers. He should not detain the House longer, but conclude by seconding the resolutions of his Noble Friend. Viscount HOWICK—I cannot help thinking that such a proceeding as that proposed by the Noble Lord cannot be adopted without great inconvenience. Ido not attempt to justify the language complained of, but I do concur in the meaning of it so far as it represents the present state of the law to be not only discreditable but disgraceful. Instead of raising the House in the estimation of the country I think the resolutions of the Noble Lord will tend to lessen its charac ter, and bring upon it a greater degree of public repro bation. lam far from accusing any lion. Members of this House of deliberate perjury, but do not all anticipate the decision of a Committee when they see the Members of whom it is composed 2—( Loud cheers.) I think, there fore, it will not be wise to adopt the resolution of the Noble Lord ; but that the wisest course will be to drop the pre sent proceedings, and go on with the public business of the night, and afterwards, with as little delay as passible, turn our attention to the correction of the evils arising from the present state of the law.—(Cheers.) This will be far bet ter than attempting to prop up a bad system by the resolutions of the Noble Lord, which the people will never receive as a satisfactory course. Ido not attribute any conduct to lion. Members on one side of the House which I do not intend to apply equally to the other side. I believe both to bo incapa ble of wilful perjury ; but such is the state of the law that Members were in doubt or in ignorance upon it, and they na turally indulged in a leaning towards their own party and their own friends. If the present resolutions are persevered in against the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin how will it be possible to overlook the breaches of privilege committed by the Times and the Morning Chronicle? I think, therefore, that it is imprudent to enter into such a warfare at all, and I move, as an amendment, " That the House proceed to the Order of the Day on the Irish Poor Law Bill." Mr. GA SKELL—I sho-ald have expected that on a ques tion like this, involving the privileges of the House, a very dif ferent speech would have been spoken by the Noble Lord the Secretary at War from that which he had just delivered.-- ( Cheers.) I believe, however, that the Government find themselves in some difficulty, and have so found themselves ever since the division on the Ballot. I think it would have been more manly on the part of the Government to have met this question fairly and openly than to have dragged in the name or conduct of the Bishop of Exeter—(Cheers)—and that for the purpose of gratifying those who wished to expel the Bishops from the House of Lords.—(Cheers.) I cannot help thinking that the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud has some personal feeling upon this matter : Perhaps the Noble Lord has some recollections of a certain correspondence with the Bishop of Exeter ?—( Cheers.) I should wish to know whet would have been the conduct of the Noble Lord or of the Government if any Hon. Member of this side of the House made such charges against the Roxburgh or the Sligo Com mittees as t h e Hon. arid Learned Member for Dublin has made against others? 'Would they be sheltered under the previous question? How then do cases differ, except that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin is a supporter of the Government-_the same lion. and Learned Member who, in lit 34, charged Earl Grey with being the malignant enemy of Ireland ? It is incumb ent on the House, in my opinion, to THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 183 S in proportion as they were admired for the brilliancy of their other talents. Those who had brought forward this charge against the Roman Catholic Members did not seem at all to have any impression of the grossness of the imputation of perjury until such a charge was trade against themselves. —( Hear.) He would now come to the motion of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord had already received thanks for the part he had played that evening. He certainly was anxious to offer the Noble Lord his cordial thanks for the manner in which he had brought forward his motion ; and as to the feelings which actuated him they were entitled to admiration. As to the result, he trusted that the Noble Lord would have reason to be satisfied. If the Noble Lord, in the career that was before him, would always make motions calculated to be so happy in their results as the present he hoped the Noble Lord's political career would be as splendid as it was likely to be long. There was one point which in the course of the discussion Honourable Mem bers at the other side of the House had particularly avoided to touch, and that was as to the substantial truth or false hood of the charge brought forward, and to the statement made by the Hon. Member for Dublin. They had confined them selves to discussing the point as to whether the present election tribunals were bad and unjust ; but they had not attempted to bring forward one fact._(" No, no," from the Opposition benches.) He repeated that the charge had been met by gene ral assertion. On the last day that they had a ballot in the House, two Committees were ballotted for. Each Committee was composed of Members opposed in politics to the Member petitioned against, and what was the consequence ? Why, that each Member gave up the defence of his seat without going through the mockery of a trial, and one of the Members pub licly stated in the newspapers his reasons for so doing.— (Great cheering from the Opposition Benches.) Yes, he repeated the fact, the Conservative Member had a Liberal Committee, the Liberal Member had a Conservative Com mittee, and each gave up without the mockery of a trial.— ( Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Name, name.") He would name. They were the Hon. Member for Tynemouth, and the Hon. Member for Marylebonc. Hon. Members who had made the ambiguous charge against the Hon. Member for Dublin had not been behind on this occasion. The charge was not applied to both sides of the House, but was confined to one particular side of the House, and to one particular occasion. The Hon. Member spoke of the Spottiswoode conspiracy, and of the manner in which that conspiracy had been instituted, and for the particular purpose of going against the Irish elec tion returns, and it was upon those grounds that the Honour able Member had said that the English and Scotch gentle men did act with injustice on those Election Commit tees. He would not take the question on the general evil of Election Committees, for he thought that the Spot tiswoode conspiracy was the greater evil. The Spottis woode conspiracy was suggested long before the elections took place. It was suggested in the Tory Journals. He was stating facts well known to every Member in the House. On the grounds that he had stated that conspiracy had been en tered into, it was unjust and uncalled for, and on those grounds the Hon. Member for Dublin was justified in stating that there was a disposition to act unjustly with respect to those petitions. Mr. PLUM PTIZE was ready to allow that he had a few days ago presented a petition from a large body of Protestants in this country, and which petition certainly contained strong language ; but he denied that the parties in question imputed to any Member in the House the charge of direct perjury.— ( Hear, hear.) On that point the best proof he could offer was that the House had allowed the petition to be received. The petition in question stated no more than this, that the Bill of Roman Catholic Emancipation contained an oath which was to be taken as a security to the Protestant Church that they would not abuse the powers conferred on them, and that, notwithstanding the penalty thus pro vided and the oath thus framed, the Roman Catholic Members, notwithstanding the oath they had taken, voted for the alienation of the property of the Church and the abolition of Church-rates ; and the petitioners prayed that as the security provided by the Emancipation Bill was not suffi cient, and as the oath was not taken according to the meaning of the Bill, they prayed that further security should be given by the expulsion of the Roman Catholic Members from Par liament. He felt that in supporting this petition he had only discharged a duty which he owed to the petitioners, and that did not bear the construction that had beon put upon it in the course of the debate.—( Cheers.) Mr. HOGG was understood to say that Hon. Members who exhibited so much sensitiveness and indignation on the subject of the Spottiswoode subscription seemed very anxious not to allow any questions to be put to Mr. Coppock on the subject of election petitions generally when he was before the House. He ( Mr. Hogg) had no hesitation to state that a pe tition was presented at the instance of Mr. Coppock by a Liberal Member ; and the agent who had been employed to get up the petition had admitted to him (Mr. Hogg) that the petition was without a tittle of foundation —( Hear, hear.) The Gentleman who had communicated with him (Mr. Hogg) had stated that the petition had been put in, in order to keep a Tory Member from sitting upon an Elec tion Committee. —(Cheers from the Opposition.) He hoped the House would allow him to read a letter which he had received from the Gentleman to whom he had alluded. The Hon. Member proceeded to read the letter, which was in substance to the following effect, and was (as we understood) from the agent who had been engaged in preparing the peti tion. The letter stated that the writer had been engaged in presenting a petition to the House of Commons against the return of him (Mr. Holtz) and of Mr. Fox as Members foe Beverley, andwhich petition charged the sitting Members with having been guilty of corruption at the last election. The writer proceeded to say, that pending the fate of the petition, he had not thought it right to interfere, but now that the pro ceedings respecting the petition had terminated, he felt it due to himself, from the position which he held at the late election, to inform him (Mr. Hogg), that ho was not, and could not, become a party to so disgraceful a proceeding. —(Loud cheers from the Opposition Benches.) lie (the writer) had told Mr. Coppock, when the petition was got up, that it ought to be withdrawn, and to this Mr. Coppock had stated in answer that the petition had been presented in order to prevent him (Mr. Hogg) from sitting upon election committees. He begged further to assure him ( Mr. Hogg) that Mr. Clay, one of the opposition candidates at the last election for Beverley, was no party to the petition, and that he concurred with him (the writer of the letter) in deprecating the entire proceeding as vexatious and ungentlemanlike. — ( Cheers.) This surely was a fact that ought not to bo over looked. Sir E. SUG DEN said, the Hon. Member for Dublin, in the speech which he had that evening addressed to the House, had put the case in this way. He said that, seeing the danger that was likely to arise from having the seats of justice tainted by corruption, his object was to bring before the public and the House the defective state of our own judicial tribunals. Whatever might be the value of such an explanation as this, ho was sure the House would not fail to feel how painful it was to any Honourable Member to be ex posed to such an imputation as that which the Honourable Member for Dublin had allowed himself to make. The case as made out by the Hon. Member in his justification was this—that the House had a defective tribunal, notoriously defective, and against which the whole country cried out. The I-ion. Member said that this tribunal he had attempted to amend, but that they would not concur with him in doing so ; and that therefore the whole might of the indignation of the country should rest with them f or h av i ng prevented that tribu nal from being altered. However, the objection of gentlemen at that side of the House to the alteration of the tribunal was, ' that the alteration was proposed after the question that called for adjudication had arisen. They had no objection to enter upon the question of considering what hereafter should be the tribunal. It had been said that this tribunal was a tribu nal open to every species of objection ; and yet for the remedy of these objections what was proposed ? The Noble Lord the Secretary at War, and the Hos. Member for Liskeard, proposed that the Committees should consist in future of five Members instead of eleven. But what would be the effect of narrowing the number ; for if it were true that the Committees were bad ii their constitution, by narrowing the number they would only give greater facilities for those abuses which the Hon. Member opposite alleged to exist. N o pro position had yet been mad e to the House for the establish ment of any tribunal which was not open to some object co I. The Hon. Member for Dublin had stated that he was anxious to offer a remedy, but that the House would not adopt it. He perfectly well recollected this proceeding. When the lion. Member for Liakeard proposed his Bill, the Hon. Member for Dublin got up and proposed to introduce another Bill. This was thought irregular and was objected to ; bat the ob jection was got rid of by changing the title of one of the Bills. When the Bill of the Honourable Member for Lis keard earns on for consideration, he told the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin that he was sere he had not penned a line on the subject. The evening that the Hon. Member for Liskeard's Bill was before the House, down came the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, and took his seat near the Noble Lord, acting in concert with him, as he supposed, on and stated that he would waive his own proposition in favour of the measure brought forward by the Hon. Member for Liskeard.—( Laughter from the Opposition Benches.) So that when the Hon. and Learned Member stated that he had offered a remedy to the House for these alleged defects in this tribunal, the facts were as he ( Sir E. Sugden) had stated them, and the remedy was not one proposed - by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, but by the Hon. Member for Liskeard. As the law at present stood every Member of the House was liable to be called to serve upon one election Com mittee. He was liable to be punished if he refused to attend in his place, and still further liable to be punished if, having bean called to serve upon a Committee, he refused to do so. He agreed with what had been said by the Hon. Nlember for Dublin as to the danger that would arise from casting suspi cion upon the judicial bench. The individual was guilty of a great crime who, without sufficient proof, or without suffi cient grounds, brings a grave charge against a judicial tri bunal. What then was to be said of the conduct of the Honourable Member for Dublin, who had brought against the Members of that House an imputation of foul perjury ? ( Loud cheers.) He did not say so in any technical sense , b ut he had deliberately made a char g e which amounted to this— that the Members of that HouSe gave judgment knowingly against their oaths.—(Cheers.) He ( Sir E. Sugden) de clared on his solemn word as a gentleman that he did not think that there was a single Member of that House who could be guilty of such conduct. If ho thought there was a single man in the House who could be capable of such con duct he would spurn him, as the lowest and meanest of crea tures.—( Cheers.) He believed Members of that House to be totally incapable of deciding cases from unjust motives or from any partial bias. He wished to draw attention to the f p o r r e ei sen Dublin.atu r e He e f the had charge d advanced ho l e b y h b o t d ye of H o E n . 11 g I Member ishand Scotch Gentlemen in that House with the commission of wilful and corrupt perjury. He had broadly stated that Ireland was not safe against the foul perjury of English notice the language used by the Hon. and Learned Member, because he has risen and justified it in his place. Mr. LANGDALE—I do not rise to justify the language used by the Honourable and Learned Member for Dulin ; but has not the same charge been brought by Hon. Members opposite against the Roman Catholics who are Members of this House, of which number I am one ? I should like to know—not in how many instances during the last election Honourable Gentlemen opposite, in their addresses to their constituents, did make such charges as these, but in how many they did not.—( Hear, hear.) I say it is too much, when I see so many Honourable Gentlemen opposite who have over and over again urged that a breach of their oath has been frequently committed on the part of the Catholic Members— I say it is too much that they should complain so loudly when this charge is brought against them.—( Hear.) I shall very much rejoice if these words, thus brought home to the breasts of lien. Gentlemen opposite, shall have the effect of making them more cautious for the future. With regard to the ques tion as to how the decisions of Election Committees are made I must own I have considerable difficulty on that head. I can only bring before the House the impression which was made upon my own mind at the time when I first was fortunate enough to obtain a scat within it. I was applied to on that occasion by an Honourable Gentleman, a friend of mine, to attend upon a ballot about to be struck in this House, and, innocent as I then was--(Great laughter)—my natural impression was to say, as I did, " Why should you apply to me ? Are we not bound to give a verdict according to the evidence?"—(Great laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.") What was the reply of that gentleman ?—(" Name, name," and " Go, no.") His reply was, that with such impressions as these I might as well absent nsyself.—(" Hear, hear.") One word more, and I have done. lam not aware that any distinction is to be drawn be tween the case of a Member of Parliament coming to the table of this House to be sworn and that of a juryman sworn to try an action at law.—( Hear, hear.) I ask the Noble Lord who has brought forward this motion if, in a case where a jury was about to be sworn, he should give vent to an ex pression of joy and congratulation at having a friend on that jury, there would not be a burst of indignation on the part of the Court, and whether he would not obtain the strongest possible reproof from the Judge presiding over it ?—( Hear. hear, hear.) I draw no distinction what ever between the two cases ; and if the House will permit me I will read a passage on this point from a work which is, I believe, a small authority with Hon. Gentlemen opposite, viz., Fraser's Magazine.—( Hear, hear.) A writer there, in discussing the question of the Grenville Act, said, with re gard to the decisions in the last Parliament, " They (the members of Election Committees) decided according to their political feelings—( Hear, hear)—but it would be mere folly to call this forswearing themselves."—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then concluded by saying that he did not approve of the words "false and calumnious," being applied to the charge which had been trade, as he could not say that charge was altogether false —( Hear.) Mr. COL QUHOUN said the Noble Lord the Member for Northumberland recommended them to pass to the Order of the Day, and urged the House to sit down quietly in the face of such a charge as this.—( Hear, hear.) But let him ask if an individual Member of Parliament were to be charged with perjury would he not immediately bring such a charge under the notice of the House—( Hear)—and if he did not would he not be unworthy a seat in it ? The charge which had been brought against them affected the whole House.— ( Hear)—and he maintained that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there was no other way of bringing the question to a fair issue than that of adopting the motion of the Noble Lord. It was to no purpose to talk of the charge being made in the Chronicle, or in the Times ; it had come from the mouth of a Member of that House—( Hear, hear) — and the House was thereby placed in a very different position with regard to it.—( Hear, hear.) He maintained that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, in his character of a representative, was not, in making this charge, to be treated in the same way as persons not professing such character. If any Member of that House was to charge the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department as guilty of perjury, he, as an honest man, would rise indignant at the imputation ; and, while he (Mr. Colquhoun) did that Noble Lord the jus tice to say, that he sought as much as any man to maintain his own character in that House, he must remind hint that the characters of every Member of it were equally worthy of being protected.—( Cheers.) He should have thought, he must con fess, that the Noble Lord, the moment that the Noble Lord the Member for Northamptonshire made his motion, would have risen to oppose it ; but no, the Noble Lord talked of an inquiry into the charges of the Bishop of Exeter. " Let us," said the Noble Lord, " have a grand field-day upon them." But let the Noble Lord himself open the battery and mount the breach, and he had little doubt that the Right Rev. Prelate would find some defenders even in that House. But he conceived that, if any charges were to be brought forward against the Bishop of Exeter, the proper sphere for their in troduction was the House where the Bishop had made his speech.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) As the Noble Lord seemed so anxious for the inquiry into the charges against the Bishop. perhaps they would ere long hear of its being pro posed in another place. The Hon. Member after a few fur ther observations, which were inadible, sat down amid loud cheers. Mr. EATON could not tamely sit down and hear a charge of perjury made against that House. He should vote for the motion of the Noble Lord, the Member for Northampton. shire.—( Hear.) Mr. \VYNN said, Honourable Gentlemen opposite did not attempt to justify the charge that had been made, and the Noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, recommended the House to plead guilty.—( Hear.) Surely that could only be because they thought the charge of so trifling a nature that an assertion one way or the other was of no importance.— ( Hear.) But he asked them if they meant that whenever a body of Members should hereafter be called upon to try the case of a disputed election, and should make a decision not in unison with the opinion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, that he shouly jus'ify and repeat the same charges in that House? Let them consider that these charges were made by an Hon. Gentleman who was himself presently to come before one of the these very tribunals, and that if the de cision should be against him he might threaten to accuse the persons forming it of perjury, and that such an accusation could not be punished if the House adopted the amendment of the Noble Lord opposite.—( Hear, hear.) The admission of the charge of perjury by Hon. Gentlemen opposite held out to him an encouragement to vote for passing to the Order of the Day—( Hear, hear)—and he did not see how, under the circumstances, any man could hereafter be blamed for im pugning the decision of an Election Committee.—( Hear. ) I know not how you, Sir (continued the Right Hon. Gentle man, addressing the Speaker) so to discharge your duties. Let me ask you what gentlemenaesir, are to do when any Hon. Gentleman having made a charge of the same nature, per.. haps, as that now raade by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, shall re-assert iiin that House? Any Hon. Gen tleman might say " he (Mr. O'Connell) made no apology, and though you, Sir, object to it, I will re-assert the charge I have made, as he did. Let me see if the House will punish me, after abstaining from punishing him. They dared not do it." —( Hear, hear, bear.) On these grounds, then, he (Mr. Wynn) knew not how this assertion of the Hon and Learned Member could be met more fairly than by the motion of the Noble Lord. Lord E ASTNOR should not have risen to make any ob seryatiens had it not been fur what had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman respecting the Marylebone Election Committee, on which he had sat. That Committee was cer tainly composed of Members of that side of the House, and wore no doubt looked on as a "perjured Tory Committee"— ( A laugh)—but he had flattered himself, when the circum stances of that case were such that the Counsel of the sitting Member could not advise him to defend his seat, that that Committee would have been free from the charge of perjury. He did not think, until he saw his printed address, and until he heard the speech of the Learned Member that night, that Sir Samuel Whalley himself had thought the Committee worthy to be so accused. He ( Lord Eastnor) considered the Committee decided truly.—( Cheers.) He should vote for the motion of his Noble Friend.—( Cheers. ) Mr. BROTHE RT ON thanked the Hon. Gentlemen oppo site for vindicating the conduct of the Salford Committee.— (A laugh.) He was persuaded that the question in that case was not fairly understood out of doors, and would stand the test of any investigation. He would take that opportunity of telling the House that the Hon. Member for Wenlock had been kind enough, before the Committee had even sat, to in form him what would be the result of the sitting of that Corn mittee.—( Laughter, during which the Hon. Member resumed his seat.) Mr. HORSMAN rose amidst renewed cries of, " Divide," and " Question." The Noble Lord (as we understood the Hun. Member) who bad spoken from that (the ministerial) side of the House had contended that the charge against elec tion Committees was not confined to one side of the House, but that it applied in common to all sides of the House. If the question was, whether the charge against the Members of elec tion Committees was true or not, he had no hesitation to say that a majority of the House ought to vote that such a charge was sub stantially true.--( Loud cheers from the Opposition, answered by loud cheers from the Ministerial side of the House, and re torted by renewed cheering from . the Opposition benches.) There were two topics which appeared to have been avoided in the course of this discusion by the Hon Members opposite, the first of which bore reference particularly to the Hon. and Learned Member for :Dublin. It would seem as if it was thought by Hon. Members opposite that the charge of per jury against Members of that House was altogether new and unprecedented ; but certainly there was no necessity to go out of the House to find a precedent for a charge of that character. It was but a few days since a petition had been presented by a Member of that House, charging the Roman Catholic Mem bers of that House with the crime of perjury. That petition had been presented by the Hon. Member for East Kent, and the reeeipt of the petition was opposed by the, Hon. Member for Finsbury, on the ground that the charge it contained was an insult to a class of Members who composed a very consi derable body of the Members of the House. The Honoura ble Member who presented the petition, in order that the House might judge of its nature, had moved that it should be read by the Clerk at the table of the House. It was not denied that the petition contained an imputation upon certain Members of the House, and after some observa tions the lion. Member for East Kent seemed disposed to withdraw the petiti on , w h en t h e Honourable Member for the University of Oxford go t up i n h i s place, and argued in favour of the reception of the petition. He was so strenuous upon the point, that he insisted on the petition being received, and ultimately the petition was given in containing that spe cific charge; and this was a circumstance that seemed alto , gether to have escaped the recollection of Honourable Members opposite. The Honourable Member for Kil. marnock and the Honourable Member who had preceded him seemed to have overlooked thi s fault altogether. But, however, this was not surprising, as Hon. Gentlemen of their ability were often remarkable for shortness of memory and Scotch Gentlemen.—( Loud cheers from the Opposition.) If that charge was true, he ( Sir E. Sugdcn) thought the House would labour under a very grievous imputation. If it was not true, let them see was that a way in which the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin could arrive at the object he stated himself to have in view. If he wanted to call attention to the defective state of our trihunals, was it a fair way of doing so to bring a gross charge of this nature against a poli tical opponent? The Hon. Member for Dublin, to all intents and purposes, says " There is a petition against me, but I have no faith in that petition if tried by English and Scotch gentlemen." He wished to say one word as to the charge said to have been brought forward against the Roman Catho lic Members of what was called wholesale perjury. He did not think that such a charge as that had been brought against the Roman Catholic Members ; but he certainly thought that the oaths taken by them was a very fair and proper subject for discussion. The Right Hon Gentleman concluded, by expressing his earnest concurrence in the motion before the House, and his determination to support it. Lord JO HN RUSSELL rose and said—Sir, as the Right Honourable Member who last addressed the House has called so directly on the individuals who occupy this bench for some expression of their opinion with reference to this question, I rise to comply with the call which the Right Hon. Gentleman has made upon me. At the same time I cannot help feeling that the Right Hon. Gentleman, and those who sit with him, impose a hard measure on me and those who sit beside me, If we remain silent the Right Hon. Baronet says that it is due to the House that we should state our opinions on the question now before it. It has been insinuated that, as no opinion has been expressed on this subject, we are desirous to screen the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin by col lusion ; and now, when I am about to address the House, the Hon. Member opposite decides the way in which I am to ad dress it, because he thinks that I am not likely to take the course that would be most agreeable to his opinions. I own that, if I Must state my opinion to the House, that opinion is that it is not desirable that this discussion should be proceeded with. I am fully aware that it used to be the custom, and I im pute no blame to the Noble Lord who bronght forward this mee tion for following it, that when anything was found to appear in a public Newspaper, or was said by a public character, which could be considered a breach of privilege, it was immediately taken into consideration by this House, and the offending per son, whether a gentleman moving in a high station, the editor of a newspaper, or an unfortunate printer, was immediately given into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or committed to Newgate. And thus the honour of the House of Commons was vindicated. Sir, experience in these matters has taught me that that was a most unwise principle. —( Hear, hear.) I have never seen any advantage arise from contentions of this kind, for the case has generally been in one of two positions ; either it was a matter to which public attention had not been directed, and to which the discussion gave notoriety, or, if, on the other hand, it was a question to which the public did attach importance—one in which the feeling out of doors sym pathised with the breach of privilege—then it Was little satis faction to the country to be told that the majority of this House was opposed to public opinion, and vindicated their privileges by committing to prison those who preached a con trary doctrine.—( Hear, hoar.) Why, Sir, I think this is the case at present.—(" No, no.") Be the opinions expressed as calumnious as they are stated to be, yet it cannot be denied that this is ono of those cases in which a strong feeling has existed out of doors.—( Hear.) Hardly any Hon. Gentleman ..—in fast none—have ventured to say that the present tribunal for the trial of election petitions gives universal satisfaction— that Tories have decided fairly in the case of a Liberal peti tioner, or Liberals for a Tory. No one, in fact, has said that we have that pure administration of justice which the adminis tration of justice ought to be One gentleman acknowledges a bias in favour of party, and says that decisions are frequently governed by it. Another repeats his acknowledgment. These are different phrases, but all imply this—that you have tribunals sworn to try impartially, and that deisions which proceed from them are not impartial—(" Hear, hear," and Mi nisterial cheers.) Now Sir, if that be opinion, which I shall again state—that Honourable Gentlemen are sworn to decide impartially, and that their decisions are not impartial, will any man sa y what good can be effected by our resolving that it is false and calumnious to use certain words, undoubtedly un justifiable—( Hear, hear)—and that the person using them is as a necessary consequence, to be committed to prison ?—( No, no.) Why you cannot dissent from the usual custom in this proceeding ; if you say, in the words of the resolution, that these words are false—that they are a gross breach of privi lege, and stop there, this House will put itself in the most ri diculous position that can possibly be imagined. Then, Sir, look to other consequences with respect to the quotations from e\eressin •sp o a e p r e . rs T us h e e d H in o h de e. is Member re for the Ho ry Kilmarnock aro n ee . k a s n a d Learned ys that tas for the Morning Chronicle and the Times, he shall treat thorn with the contempt they deserve, but allow me to tell him that if he permit newspapers of either party to say that our deci sions are unjust--that no justice is to be had from Election C o mmittees—that risen act in open violation of their duties in this House—if this is said day after day by these newspa pers—you may put what words you please in your resolu tions—you may act on them as you will—but you will produce no effect on the; public mind—it will remain prejudiced as before. What, then, is your ether course ? To put down breach of privilege by force, to bring the editors of newspa pers to the Bar of the House and to punish them—does any man believe that good would be effected by this course?— ( Hear, hear.) Sir, in what I have said I have spoken en tirely with regard to the policy of such proceedings, and have I proceeded in confocmity with the course adopted in similar, cases lately. For instance, in 1833, when the House, on the motion of Mr. O'Connell, ordered persons to the bar, that order was discharged, from a general opinion of the impoliey of rigorous measures.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the case which is to be the subject of this resolution, does it re solve itself into a substantive charge ? No, it resolves itself into the use of a very gross term—perjury.—( A Member— " Foul perjury.") Yes, foul perjury. Sir, Idono in any way mean to justify or to palliate those words, but I do not think that the use of words of this kind by persons engaged in the heat of party contention ought to be made the grounds of pro ceedings in this House. We have heard repeatedly for the last thet o Membersl or oi v t e h s t r o e sf e o uy thisre e a e r ss chargesof r u o s m e the . T of h fo i sp g ee h rG e j i s le t rny authorities a ov s em w af ne e le Catholic i a an s from tghsoloe be wounded as well as other Members, yet they did not make it a question of privilege ; but, when allusion is now made to matters which none deny, we are required to notice it di rectly. A Right Hon. Gentleman has said that Roman Ca tholic gentleman may act inconsistently with their oath without going to the extent of perjury; but t must say that his defi nition comes to something not very different.—( Hear.) It is said that men take an oath and afterwards act otherwise than in conformity with it, and that charge is made over and over again, day after day, and men who know and feel it to be groundless bear it in silence; but the moment a similar charge is made against an opposite party it is to be borne no longer, and the House must interpose. Some observations have been made about a notice which I gave, not of an amendment, but a conditional notice I gave on Friday last. Sir, I will the House at once my purpose in giving that notice.—( Hear, hear.) I w i s h e d to warn t h e N o bl e Lord opposite and this House of the danger of entering on proceedings of th:s nature, and I thought I could take no better example than I did. I think that, with regard to men engaged in violent popu larcontention at elections and public meetings, carrying to a licentious extent the use of political language, that that is a matter to be corrected by public opinion, not a ques tion for legal proceedings, more especially as no obstruc tion has been offered to the proceedings of this House, nor has it been threatened with popular violence. If the House entertained the motion of the Noble Lord, I should then go on to show that in my opinion a public man was the more to be pardoned, because a person who, from his venerated station, ought to be quite removed from all party contention, had in his pastoral charge to his Clergy allowed party violence to stain his language, and, forgetful of his duty as a Christian Prelate, had charged Members of this House with treachery, aggravated by perjury.—(klinisterial cheers.) I alluded to this fact last year, and said I hoped no one would take any notice of it in the House, but I now say that if party heats and contentions pervade so rauch the whole of society in this country that even a Bishop cannot refrain from using the term perjury as applied to Members of the Houso of Commons, and that it is to be passed over, surely there should be some allow. ance made for a man engaged in the heat of these contentions, and one who, if he has not spared others, has never been spared himself by the party opposed to him.—( Cheers. ) Sir, two of the Honourable Gentlemen who have spoken alluded with great triumph to what they termed my collu sion with the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. I wish them joy of their - finding of a topic which has before been worn threadbare. I can assure them that no accusation of this kind —no triumph on their parte—will prevent me making myself subject to their accusations when I believe myself act hile I Government believe I of which eAtn Ido am it act ing f o r the benefit of the country, for the benefit of any part n io i n ty s' of or th w e consls te o bject be to give new im p ortance to the Hon. and Learned Member —if a m ember.—( H ear, hear, and Ministerial cheers.) Sir, if the em ber—if the wi sh be to e levate him in the e y es of the of her Majesty's e6t7 with 's thed dominions, people of Ireland, and of this country—l should then say, s this resolution — ( Hear, bear)—condemn the Hon. and Learneda Member, send him to Newgate, and tell the world you have no other way of vindicating your decisions on elec tion petitions.—( Cheers.) At the same time take into con sideration a measure for altering the constitution of Commit tees, and avow that you are not ignorant of their defects. The p e ople of this country would then say, "We heard be fore that those election decisions were partial, and when we see the person who told us so made the victim of injustice and imprisoned, we will stand by that man, and elevate him to the utmost of our power."—( Hear, hear.) That would be the most likely effect of your resolution. If you wish to consult your own dignity—if you wish to do that which is most pru dent —you will adopt the motion of my Noble Friend ,• but if you wish to give popularity to the Honourable and Learned Member you will adopt the resolutions proposed by the Noble Lord opposite, with a feeling and spirit which does him high honour ; but with little knowledge of the world, or of the cus toms of this House.—(Ministerial cheers.) Sir R. PEEL—Sir, before I notice the speech of the Noble Lord who has just sat'clown, I much refer to ono remark made by the Noble Lord who moved the previous question, and which appeared to mo to betray a very incorrect memory with respect to what passed in regard to the Bill to amend the mode of trying controverted elections. The Noble Lord represented her Majesty's Government as most anxious that an improved system of constitutiug tribunals for the trial of controverted elections should be adopted ; but the Noble Lord says that the benevolent intentions of Government were de feated by the opposition offered at this side of the House. N o w, I never recollect in any one instance Government show ing any desire to introduce this improved system. Ido re collect the Noble Lo r d spe aki ng something like these words I will on a given day state to the House what course I mean to pursue with respect to using a day for the trial of controverted elections." I recollect him also saying, " I dent pledge myself from the charge of foul perjury in the honest and conscientious to fix a day, because some extraordinary contingency may oc- discharge of their judicial functions ?—( Hear.) When I hear cur with respect to the petitions which may prevent me fixing a night after night in this House such grave imputations made day." Well the day arrived—we were panting with anxiety against the great measure of Reform which was passed by the for a knowledge of this extraordinary contingency—but the Noble Lord and his colleagues—when lam told at one time Noble Lord, when the day came, stated That, on referring that there was more intimidation, more corruption, and more to the petitions, and finding nothing extraordinary in them, expense at the last elections than at any other which preceded he would, instead of bringing forward his promised motion, them—when I hear the reformed Parliament accused of foul adopt the terms of mine." He did adopt them, and did fix a perjury in the dischaege of its judicial functions—when charges day. He was successful on the second reading of his Bill—it are made which must necessarily lead the public to infer that was carried by a larger majority than is usual on Ministerial judicial functions cannot be trusted to Committees of the House, questions.—(Laughter.) Why did he not persevere ? He and that, consequently, they should be equally distrusted as fixed a day ea which election petitions were to be tried, and to the discharge of their Legislative duties also, I own I never has Government manifested the slightest anxiety about cannot repress my surprise at the Noble Lord opposite so their Bill.--( Hear, hear.) This is a Bill declaratory of the ligtly aaquiescing at such effects being imputed to his own intentions of its authors, and what is its last clause? Not one favourite measure.—( Loud cheers.) If you have the power for red into it by a powerful majority, but originally brought —I do not call upon you to prosecute those resolutions by any into it by the framer. It is to this effect—" And be it vindictive punishment—but if you have the power, I call upon enacted that the operation of this Act shall commence from you, as you would retain your hold upon the public mind, to the last day of the present session." Therefore, Sir, I must defend from the unjust imputation of foul perjury those Mem beg leave to deny that Government have ever shown any bers of your own House who fearlessly, fully, and honestly serious intention of substituting a new system for trying perform their duty.—(Cheers.) Do not—as you will do if controverted elections.—( Hear.) My objection to fixing an you connive at this amendment—permit a charge of this na immediate period for the operation of the Bill was made be- ture to be drawn into a daily precedent. I introit of you to cause I foresaw that the effect of its discussion in the stormy disregard and to discharge from your minds any threat, or any conflict of opinion would be that the trial of these petitions dread of raising the Hon. and Learned Gentleman into an un would be indefinitely postponed--( Hear)—and I thought it due elevate .n by your vote of to-night.—( Hear, hear.) Do . • I was necessary that the House should decide immediately as to that which you believe in your hearts to be consistent with' e. who had a right to take part in its deliberations. The Hon. truth and justice, and believe me when I assure you that such e and Learned Member for Dublin proposed a plan which would conduct will amply repay you for disregarding all false have met all objections against the present tribunals, because appeals to your prejudices or your passions. The Right Hon. it would have taken from this House its judicial power. But Gentleman resumed his scat amid loud cheers. if his accusation is unjust we ought not for a moment to listen The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to his proposal, because it would hare the effect of taking from amidst loud cries of " Question." Order being restored, this House the power of adjudicating on its own privileges. he said—Notwithstanding all the power and commanding Now I come to the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home influence of the Right Hon. Baronet—notwithstanding his Department, and his arguments, by which he tried to con- capability, and his admirable tact in selecting those topics by ;' vince the Hoase that it is proper the motion should give way which he knows how best to recommend himself to the House to the other Orders of the Day. The Noble Lord seemed —surely when he cannot make a stronger case than he has surprised at the appeal made by my Noble Friend. How is put, his cause must he weak indeed, and his advocacy only it possible after his own public notice that he should wish us furnishes stronger reasons why the House should adopt the to pi oceed to the Grders of the Day ?—( C heers.) He amendment of my Noble Friend. The Right Hon. Baronet did not get up when my Noble Friend gave notice of his mo- and his Friend fieem to enjoy a great triumph in a verbal in tion to dissuade him from it, but he got up with the greatest accuracy of the notice of my Noble Friend the Secretary of impatience, and said, "As soon as you have decided with the Home Department. The whole object of the notice respect to your breach of privilege I will bring forward mine." and its legical tendency was quite opposite to the meaning (" No," from Lord J. Russell.) I should like to know in attempted to be given to it by the Right Hon. Baronet. The what way I have misinterpreted him. Ido not mean to say object of my Noble Friend's motion was to show the conee 'he then wished to pass to the Orders of the Day—l allude to quences to which, if followed up, the motion of the Noble his promised motion, a decision on which he now shrinks from. Member for North Northamptonshire would lead. What wilL The notice of the Noble Lord was, " provided we entertained be the result if the motion be agreed to ? We have not heard. the present motion." Why, what a mierable quibble is this the course which, in that event, is proposed to be taken. I —( Loud cheers.) lie said that, if my Noble Friend brought understand there has been no statement made of that nature, forward his motion he would submit to the consideration of but by inference is that there is no intention of going any the House a breach of privilege alleged to have been commit- further. As the Right Honourable Baronet has called upon ted two years since. That is, he said, that if you visit with the House to protect its Members, but as he at the same time any punishment or censure this charge of perjury against your deprecated any harsh measures, I have a right to assume that Members, he would bring forward a charge made two years the intention is here to stop with the resolution. Tho first since—if my friends around me, who have a duty to perform, resolution charged the Honourable and Learned Member for , are accused of foul perjury in the discharge of that duty, and Dublin with falsehood and calumny in attributing perjury ask the House for its protection, and the House should give to the Committees of the House, and the second resolution that protection, then must a Right Reverend Prelate be charged him with a breach of the privileges of the House. brought forward for a charge delivered two years ago ? Perhaps the Right Honourable Member for Montgomery- , That was the satisfaction to be given by the Noble Lord. Now, shire, who is so well versed in the precedents of Parlia- Sir, what are the simple facts of the case? Here is a charge of ment, will tell the House whether he is aware of any in foul perjury preferred against Hon. Members of this House, stance in which such resolutions were carried without being .; acting in their judicial capacity. It might have been made followed up by an order for taking the person affected by them during the excitement of a political dinner, but there was an into custody. If you pass these resolutions, and then pro opportunity given to him to retract.--( Hear, hear.) He was coed no further in the matter, a more miserable proceeding not called on suddenly to answer it. Due notice was given of was never before adopted by the collective wisdom--(Loud the motion of my Noble Friend. He (the Hon. and Learned Ministerial cheers.) We will suppose that an imputation has , Member) could have apologised. He could have said—" I been cast upon the House. Will these resolutions remove have made the charge—l am sorry for it, and think no mere it ? On the contrary, by reading these papers which will about it ;" but he took the more manly course of distinctly and be printed in the votes you circulate the charge through deliberately avowing, in his place in that House, that he had the world. The Right Honourable Baronet said he had , made the charge, and that he adhered to it.—( Hear, hear.) two objects in view. The first is, that the House should The Hon. Members serving on these Committees appeal for be set right in the public mind ; but how will these rose protection. Now, the first question I ask is, are the charges lutions effect that abject ? The next is to afford protectiom well founded? I suppose that is material to the issue ; and the to the Election Committees ; but he should know that the , first witness I shall cite is the Noble Lord opposite. Ho had public will judge of these Committees, upon other grounds than. heard of this charge before, and said that, in his opinion there a party vote in this House, or words improperly used at the- • was no intentional perjury on any side, although when he saw Crown and Anchor Tavern. Ido not intend to defend those so much joy at the names called over on Committees, he was in- words. On the contrary, I think them highly objectionable. I coined to fear that the decisions would be influenced by party. admit that they were in themselves a breach of privilege. — He allowed, however, that great difficulty arose from the mis- (Cheers.) Of this there can be no doubt; but then comes understanding as to the right of voting in Ireland, which was the question, is it expedient to take the step which is proposed particularly striking in the two Longford Committees, and he to us ? How many breaches of the privileges of the House said that, without imputing perjury in a case where two Irish take place, hour after hour, of which it would be most expe- Judges had differed, there was a great latitude for party bias, dient to take cognizance ? Now, with respect to imputations and this without charging deliberate perjury to any one. If of this nature, I would ask, are lion. Members opposite aware . you thus acquit Members of perjury why then do you refuse to that charges have been made in the most solemn manner by' e protect them ?—( Cheers.) You acknowledge that they de- ecclesiastical authorities against members of the Church bar sire protection, and yet you take so step to give it to them. ing violated their oaths with respect to Chapters ? Did the —( Hear, hoar.) The Government acknowledge the charge persons thus implicated seek to vindicate themselves ? No— of foul perjury to be unfounded, yet they refuse the protec- they relied upon their own characters to sustain them against tion of these resolutions.—( Hear, hear.) Now what are the the imputation. You may be assured that any proceeding of grounds of refusal ? The Noble Lord says that there are this nature against an individual, will only produce a re-action prejudices in the public mind upon this subject ; but is it not in his favour.—( Hear, bear.) I again repeat, Ido not mean our duty to set right the public mind? Is it our duty to to justify the language of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman , acquiesce in a charge of wilful and corrupt perjury against I admit was highly objectionable. But if this House inter our Members for fear the public mind should entertain crro- pose vindictively, for the purpose, as it is called, of asserting neous impressions ? I say that the way to encourage the its character, the inference will be raised that the House, public mind to entertain these matters is to shrink from the unable to rely upon its own character for support, has recourse honest discharge of our duty, and when we feel a charge is to force for its vindication.—(Hear, hear.) unfounded to be afraid to rebut it. The Noble Lord's Sr, F. POLLOCK—Sir, I cannot be satisfied to give a excuse is his ()ejection to the present mode of trying glee- silent vote upon this question after the speeches which I have tion petitions, but is not the distinction perfectly obvious heard from the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, between a wish to change the tribunal and a direct charge and the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Depart_ of perjury? Is it not perfectly consistent to admit that merit. They seem to argue that these who oppose the. the present system is wrong—to feel a great desire to see it amendment necessarily deny what all admit, namely, that there e changed—and yet also to :wish to resist this charge of foul and are defects in the constitution of the election Committees. wilful perjury against Members of this House ?—(Loud They seem to think that we adopt the existing tribunals, and cheers.) The Noble Lord says that if we wish to elevate arc opposed to any alteration. I for my part, may claim to the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin we will pass a con- have as mush experience as any Hon. Member of the House sure on him. If we visit him with unjust censure of course of the working of these tribunals, and lam satisfied that we will, but if his charge of perjury be unjust, why should the there is no Member more alive to their defects, or more ready House of Commons shrink from saying so ? Because an erro- to listen to any suggestion which may appear to be adapted neous impression on the puhlic mind elevates an individual into to remedy the evils.—(Hear, hear.) But it is quite a dif false importance, is the HouseSof Commons to shrink from its ferent thing to be satisfied as to the defects of the present eye duty ?—( Hear, hear.) If you do so, if you reject these reso- tern and to make a charge against the Members who form the lutions, what is to become of the petitions ?—( Hear, hear.) Committees of wilful and corrupt perjury. And I further Suppose a petitioner thinks proper to come to your bar and say that if such a charge against the Members of this House charge you with foul perjury, will you resent it, or will your were well-founded the sooner they were deprived both of their answer be to move the Order of the Day ?—( Cheers.) What judicial and legislative functions the better both for there — , will you do with it ? What was your doctrine in the case of selves and the country.—(Loud cheers.) But Ido not be the petition against the Roman Catholic Members ? It was here the charge. The defects of these tribunals do not arise to reject the petition, as containing a charge of perjury against from any wilful desire to distort evidence of facts, but because Members of this House ; and we have an equal right to resent questions are involved to the adjustment of which those who a Member of Parliament bringing forward a similar charge. compose tho tribunals are not competent. Now, to the ques- Let mo ask you what you will do in this case ? Suppose a Lion before the House, I fully concur with the Right Honour - Member who is forced to serve on these tribunals says that he able Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and the Noble Lord is ready to discharge his duty—a most painful and arduous the Member for N orth Northam p tonshire, that when charges duty—to sacrifice his time, to do it according to his best of this sort are made in the public prints and out of doors, that ability and the dictates of his conscience—supposo he appeals it would be most impolitic and unwise to notice them. My to you for protection from a charge of perjury, and you refuse reason for voting as I intend to vote is, because of the peen- '• it. If he then should say, " I will not exercise judicial funs- liar position which the person who made this charge occupies tions subject to the odium of such a charge, I refuse to serve in the House.—(Ministerial cheers, followed by counter e ; on the Committee," will you commit him to Newgate ? cheers.) I cannot forget that that Honourable and Learned ( Hear, hear.) Will you permit the innocent man, who wishes Gentleman was petitioned against in a former Parliament ; he to discharge his duty, to be punished? He will not continue is also petitioned against in this Parliament; and his case to act if you do not give him the protection enjoyed by every is to be decided by a Committee of this House. This, . Judge and Jury in the land. Suppose ho declines, not from then, is a case which calls for particular notice. The pique or from any personal feeling, but because be keys you Honourable and Learned Gentleman has denounced as pee have destroyed his utility as a Judge, have permitted him to jured Committees by one of which he has been unseated. be denounced as a foul perjurer, will the same majority which the petition now pending be decided against him lie can, with we are told will negative the motion of my Noble Friend impunity, denounce as perjurers those by whom the deci commit that Member for a breach of privilege ?—( Hear.) sion is made ; if the decision be in his favour he will per- Sir, if these charges be, as I believe them to be, without haps call it an honourable exception to the general rule.-- foundation—(" Hear, hear," and " No," from the Ministerial ( Loud cheers.) Sir, this is one of the reasons why I think • benches) —I can only say that the two Noble Lords on the the charge so gravely made should not be suffered to pas other side concur in my opinion—if they be without founda- unnoticed by the House ; but, more than this, when a Nobl tion I have heard no arguments to convince me that the House Lord, serving the Crown, and leading the Government in this. of Commons should not do in this case what justice would House, rises, not as I had at first supposed, to repel the compel them to do.—( Hear.) I recollect a case analogous charge, and say " not guilty"—but when I see that Noble Lord to this. In 1834 a charge was preferred against certain Irish in effect identifying himself with the accusation.—( Lou. Members by a Member of this House (Mr. Hill.) It re- cheers, which drowned the conclusion of the sentence.) The ferred to a report of a conversation with certain Irish glom- Noble Lord did not, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer bers respectiu' the votes they were obliged to give. This and the Secretary at War, disclaim the charge which w : was a charge affecting the Members from Ireland. Now how made. No ; leading her Majesty's Government in this House did the House meet that charge ? On the very first day of the Noble Lord rises at once in his place, throws himself for the Session it was brought under consideration by Mr. ward in defence of the lion. and Learned Member f O'Connell, who felt it was for the public interest that the Dublin, and of coarse shares with him in the responsi honour of the Irish Members should be vindicated.—( A bility. After the course which had been taken Ido think' - laugh.) Mr. O'Connell then said that after the charge it would not be becoming in the House to agree to the which had been brought his Hon. Friends were anxious for amendment.—(Hear, hear.) The charge made without has • an inquiry, that the friends of air. Sheil were deeply irate- been repeatedewithin doors, and we now call upon the House rested in his character, and that although two or three Mem- to declare by its vote that the charge is untrue. We hare leers had succeeded in vindicating their character, that the been asked whether the resolutions are to be followed up by same privilege should be extended to all. He thought the any other proposition ? Ido not know what is the intention House could not in justice refuse to ac ce d e t o this demand. of the Noble Mover of the resolutions ; but when he says the The constituents of the lion. and Learned Member for Tip- charge is a false and scaadalous one, and designates it afi perary ought to know whether th e i r representative was worthy breach of the privileges of this House, I, as an individual, feel of their conadence, and for his sake, as well as for the clia- myself perfectly justified in voting that the charge is false, ratter of all who were involved in the charge, the oppor- and that it is a breach of the privileges of the House, with tunity of investigation would not be r e f use d. Now, Sir, out being called upon to follow up that vote by moving a come perhaps the lion. Members on this side of the House who mittal to the Tower.—( Hear, bear.) What I ask would be have served upon Committees, and who, therefore, come the position of Members of this House if the resolutions be under the sweeping charge of the Honourable and Learned no t proceeded with? Suppose I, or any other Member of Member for Dublin, have friends and constituents also this House, were appointed to serve on a Committee —an who take an interest in their characters and conduct, and Hon. Member gets up and accuses me of wilful perjury. who would desire to see them freed from such an aspersion..-_ What is the course which a Gentleman should pursue under (Hear, hear.) Will it not be granted that other Members o f suc h c i rcum stances ? He has only one of two courses—either this House might be as sensitive for their honours as either to demand personal satisfaction, or throw himself upon the the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin or Tipperary, and House for protection. It is a thing which cannot bo passed would as Naturally and as anxiously as they desire t o be f ree d over , an d if the House will not afford protection, personal from the imputation of foul perjury thus made against them ? conflict must be the result. I, perhaps, shall be told that such • , Is it not fair to suppose that on public grounds alone, and put- could not be the result in this case, but that is only an additional ting out of the question all privat e a n d p ersona l feelings, reason for yielding protection to such as serve upon Commitees, Members of the House of Commons serving on Election and who comes to a fair, honest, and conscientious decision of the Committees, and labourieg under such a charge, should come case submitted to him.—(Cheers.) You admit that the charge down to this House and seek its protection ?—(Hear, hear.) is false and slanderous, and then you, in effect, say that it ie of I remember that the Hon. Memb er f or Kilk en ny (then so little consequence what public opinion is with respect to Member for Middlesex) viewed the matter in a different light this House, that you will allow one of your own Members to from that in which the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin say, not that the Committees were mistaken in their views, not looked upon it; and he advised the Hon. and Learned Gentle- that they came to a partial decision, but that they were guilty man not to press the subject upon the consideration of the of wilful and corrupt perjury.—( Hear.) You will permit this, House. What did the lion. and Learned Gentleman say in and then you argue that the House should not take any notice - reply to this suggestion ? Did ho net th en sa y, No, this is no of such conduct. If by going into the Orders of the Day you vague and anonymous charge, made by the public press, but a shrink from and evade this question, the House will be acting ' direct and substantial statement, made by a Member of Parli a- a mos t unworthy part. I call upon you now to show to the , ment ?"—( Cheers.) A motion was at that time also made to g et coun t r y that you will not suffer the char acter of the House of rid of the subject by the previous question, but I and others Commons to be thus insulted. I call upon you to vindicate then thought it was in fairness due to the Irish Members then yourselves; and I say that it is necessary for the House, both implicated to grant them the inquiry, and we voted accord- in its legislative and judicial character, to repel the charge ingly. The charge in the present instance stands upon pre- which has been made against it.—( Loud cheers.) cisely the same grounds. It was made by a Member of this The CHISHOLM rose, amidst loud cries of " Question, House, who, so far from denying, re - asse rts it in his place question," and " Divide, divide," which prevente d our catch here. Hon. Members opposite who have spoken for the ing a single sentence. We understood the Hon. Gentleman to amendment of the Noble Lord the Secretary' at War, whilst deny, as one of the Marylebone Committee, that he was ac they admit that the tribunal for the adjudesation of election tuated by any party feelings. cases is defective, still insist that the charge of perjury doge An HON. element whose name we could not learn, next not apply. Why then will they not adopt the precedent este- attempted to address the House, but with like success. He blished in the instance of the charge made against the Irish repelled the charge of the Hon. and Learned Member for Members on the occasion alluded to, and thus yield tale pro- Dublin. • teCtiOn of the House to its own Members , and rescue. them I Mr. Alderman COPELAND must say that, with reaPec4